Allard simply didn't want to lose in '08
After hearing Sen
Judging by the electoral failures of other Bush-enablers who were up for re-election in November (like George Allen and Rick Santorum), voters aren’t likely to stick with the senators who vote with the administration 95 percent of the time.
Bo Tuerk
Yes it would be hard for a liberal to believe anyone would live up to their promise. And yes Colorado is turning blue, just look at the bills getting ready to go to Ritter. Pro union and one to let New York decide who gets our electoral college votes. Yes we are blue
Posted by Don on January 23, 2007 05:07 AMAllard made a promise and kept it. It's called honesty. It's called integrity.
Mr. Tuerk, I suggest you use your dictionary to learn what these concepts mean. Republicans believe that they are important characteristics in a politician. That is why we didn't support many elected officials in this last election. Even though they were incumbents, they were not being honest, so they lost party support.
The opposite of honesty is dishonesty. It involves lying. See the behavior of Clinton, Kennedy, Daschle, Pelosi, Murtha, and others too nauseating to mention.
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on January 23, 2007 05:46 AMThe others too nauseating to mention would be Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Hastert, and pretty much anybody else connected with the administration.
Posted by withheld on January 23, 2007 06:23 AMDon and Yaakov,
Don't be so quick to praise Allard for his honesty or integrity.
Ten years ago he placed one hand on a bible and raised another hand to God, and swore to, "uphold and defend the constitution...without reservations or purpose of evasion".
Then he proceeded to spend those 10 years trying to re-write it to include a divisive and discriminatory amendment that contradicted the intent and spirit of the constitution. And for what? To defend marriage? No, it was never under attack. Because gay marriage, like several other issues, is the kind of "us vs them" subject that certain politicians like Allard and Musgrave, whose first loyalties lie with their parties and not with their constitutents or their sworn duties, love to use to divide American for their own political gain.
And more pathetically, it was the only significant piece of legislation Allard sponsored during his terms in office. He was too busy being a GOP atta boy and serving their interests to follow through on his promises to serve the people of Colorado.
I think Thomas is exactly right. If people were still loving' George Bush and the Iraq war, Senator Allard would still be running. After all, his vendetta against the GLBT population is not yet successful nationally.
BTW, how funny is it that if a majority of the people don't believe in the Iraq war, they don't count. Just a short time ago, a majority vote was considered desirable when it was against abortion, stem cell research and gay people.
Posted by Dona Dunsmore on January 23, 2007 03:11 PMI think that Allard's problems were also exacerbated by his support for torture. After all, he was one of only nine senators not to vote for the anti-torture bill in 2005 or 2006. I don't think he wanted to see those votes come back to haunt him. (I guess that's part of what you right wingers call "integrity.")
Although I don't agree with the majority of allard's political stances, I do support his attempts to bring aid to Darfur. Allard was one of only several politicians to earn an A+ from an agency which ranks Darfur aid work by politicians. In my opinion the situation in Darfur is a world crisis second only to the African AIDS epidemic. However, as both of these problems are in Africa and thus don't really affect America, I expect liberals and conservatives alike to look the other way. If only there were a genie in a lamp, maybe we could wish away both the Democrats and Republicans, and in return receive a competent government. Kudos to Allard on being part of very small minority to try and send aid to a region suffering more than anywhere else on the planet.
Posted by Geoff on January 23, 2007 05:08 PMI withdraw my above post. I sometimes confuse the actions of Colorado's two controversial politicians and the grade referenced above was actually the one received by Tom Tancredo whereas Allard has an abyssmal record. In such a light, my above post makes no sense and I apologize and withdraw my comment. Glad you'll be gone in '08
Posted by Geoff on January 23, 2007 09:44 PMThomas
Marriage used to mean a legal relationship between a man and a woman. Then the courts started changing the meaning of the word without asking voters.
If the courts can change the meaning of any word they want without voter approval, they could also redifine the term "human being" to exclude or include anyone they want. It's a dangerous power to let the courts have.
Also many of us think that homosexual behavior is bad for the people who do it. Rarely do I find anyone who disagrees with me open to honest discussion on the subject. Instead we are faced with ad hominen attacks and spurious allegations.
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on January 24, 2007 05:59 AMYaakov,
You may think "homosexual behavior is bad" but you don't have the right to enact your beliefs into legislation that denies gay Americans the same rights as you do.
As for the courts changing the meaning of the word without asking voters. The right of American citizens to be treated equally and fairly under the law is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. constitution. The right to be treated equally under the law should never have been put up for popular vote.
And by the way...the court didn't start changing the meaning of the word. Marriage, as far as government is and should be concerned, is a contract between two consenting adults who agree to be committed anhd responsible for and to each other. Then the government got into the business of mandating who qualified to enter that contract based not on their love and commitment, but their gender.
Placing a gender restriction on a legal contract, especially one that carries more than 1,000 benefits (hospital visitation, making decisions for care or life and death situations, inheritance, taxation, etc) is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment because it fences out a specific group from those protections based solely on societal prejudice.
Lastly, Yaakov, if you are married, I would venture that your wedding vows rank as the most important statement you have made or will ever make in your life. Gay Americans are denied the right to make that same expression of commitment and have it receive the same legal recognition. Ever read the 1st Amendment?
You have every right to believe that gay marriage is immoral. But denying people the same right s and opportunties that you enjoy it is both unconstitutional and UN-AMERICAN.
Posted by Thomas on January 24, 2007 07:56 AMYaakov,
You may think "homosexual behavior is bad" but you don't have the right to enact your beliefs into legislation that denies gay Americans the same rights as you do.
As for the courts changing the meaning of the word without asking voters. The right of American citizens to be treated equally and fairly under the law is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. constitution. The right to be treated equally under the law should never have been put up for popular vote.
And by the way...the court didn't start changing the meaning of the word. Marriage, as far as government is and should be concerned, is a contract between two consenting adults who agree to be committed anhd responsible for and to each other. Then the government got into the business of mandating who qualified to enter that contract based not on their love and commitment, but their gender.
Placing a gender restriction on a legal contract, especially one that carries more than 1,000 benefits (hospital visitation, making decisions for care or life and death situations, inheritance, taxation, etc) is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment because it fences out a specific group from those protections based solely on societal prejudice.
Lastly, Yaakov, if you are married, I would venture that your wedding vows rank as the most important statement you have made or will ever make in your life. Gay Americans are denied the right to make that same expression of commitment and have it receive the same legal recognition. Ever read the 1st Amendment?
You have every right to believe that gay marriage is immoral. But denying people the same right s and opportunties that you enjoy it is both unconstitutional and UN-AMERICAN.
Our OFFICIAL form of government, Yaakov, is CONSTITUTIONAL democracy. Government by the people for the people...but within the framework of the constitution. When the will of the people violates the constitutional rights of individuals, the judicial branch is responsible for ensuring that their rights are not violated. That is NOT the courts abusing their power. It is them doing exactly what the framers of the constitution intended.
Re-writing the constitution to include an amendment that directly contradicts another amendment is a violation of the legislative branch's oath to..."uphold and defend the constitution."
If Allard and Musgrave want to amend the constitution to include amendments that contradict other amendments, how about re-enacting the very popular Brady Bill that Bush allowed to expire as a constitutional amendment and ban, once and for all, automatic weapons from our streets?
Posted by Thomas on January 24, 2007 08:04 AM